Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Local Benefits of Improved Sanitation and HygieneFIGURE 18: AVERAGE MONTHLY WATER TREATMENT COST (VND) IN ALL SURVEYED SITESDry seasonMajor watersourceMinor watersourceUrbanMajor watersourceRainy seasonMinor watersourceMajor watersourceDry seasonMinor watersourceRuralMajor watersourceRainy seasonMinor watersourcePiped water0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000Non-piped protected sourcetreatment costs, VND/m 3Non-piped unprotected‘Major’ and ‘Minor’ refer to whether the listed water sources provide the major or a minor contribution to domestic water supply needs.48As shown in Figure 17, people use different water sourcesfor different uses, due to variations in its availability, qualityand cost. Households are sensitive to price, and averagemonthly treatment costs are provided in Figure 18. Forexample, piped water – which is relatively more expensivethan other water sources – is used more in the dry thanin the rainy season, as alternative, cheaper protected watersources are more available in the rainy season in both ruraland urban areas. However, piped water is generally the safestwater source in terms of avoiding waterborne diseases.The monthly cost of household treatment of unprotectedwater sources varies between 48% and 77% of the costs ofaccessing piped water; hence it is cheaper to treat collectedwater than to pay for piped water.4.2.4 HOUSEHOLD RESPONSE TOCONTAMINATED WATER AND RELATED COSTSHouseholds may respond to traditional water sources theyknow to be polluted in several ways: changing source ofpurchased water; walking further to haul free but cleanerwater; or treating water at home. In addition, those whoare able to may choose to connect to a piped water source(if available and affordable), or they may harvest rainwater.When cheaper water sources are not available or trusted,and/or when households are relatively well off, they maypurchase bottled water or bring in a tanker (more in urbanareas). Figure 19 presents average values of responses fromsurveyed households on the reasons for using water sourcesat all rural and urban sites. There is no significant differ-Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Local Benefits of Improved Sanitation and Hygieneence between rural and urban values where people considerwater quality as the most important reason for selecting apiped-water source (92% versus 95%). Having sufficientquantity was the reason 42% of urban population chose apiped water source, while in rural sites it was 17%. Thesefindings mean that water access cost was not a main reasonfor selecting the main household source, since piped waterusually requires higher household expenditure. In areaswhere piped water is not available, water quality was themain reason for selecting a particular water source (85%versus 86% among non-piped protected sources, and 69%versus 76% among unprotected sources). Households usingunprotected water sources were more likely to cite cost as afactor in their choice of water source.FIGURE 19: REASONS CITED FOR USING WATER SOURCES – RURAL VERSUS URBAN (%)QualityPipedwaterQuantityCostCitedreasonforusingwatersourcesNon-pipedprotectedQualityQuantityCostQualityNon-pipedunprotectedQuantityCostUrbanRural0 20 40 60 80 100PercentageFIGURE 20: HOUSEHOLD WATER TREATMENT PRACTICES (%)BoilingChemicals (Alum)TreatmentmethodsSand, charcoal filterChlorineIn-house filterUrbanRural0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Percentagewww.wsp.org49
Page 3:
Economic Assessment ofSanitation In
Page 9:
Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 17:
ForewordTarget 10 of the Millennium
Page 22 and 23:
Glossary of TermsBenefit-cost ratio
Page 24 and 25:
AcknowledgmentsThe Economics of San
Page 27 and 28:
V. National Benefits of Improved Sa
Page 29 and 30:
Table 32. Sanitation coverage, and
Page 31:
Figure 34. What factors were of mos
Page 34 and 35:
Annex Table E1. Level of satisfacti
Page 36 and 37: Annex Table J1. Site U1 (Dong Thap,
Page 38 and 39: PopulationSelected Development Indi
Page 40 and 41: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 46 and 47: III.Study MethodsThe study methodol
Page 60: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 70 and 71: IV.Local Benefits of Improved Sanit
Page 117 and 118: VI.Costs of Improved Sanitationand
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
ReferencesAcharya A, Paunio MK and
Page 152 and 153:
ANNEX 1: PROGRAM APPROACH ANALYSIST
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
ANNEX TABLESANNEX A. STUDY METHODST
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
show all

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?